Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

61, 70, 73 or other?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • digglahhh
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black
    it may very well be that the 8 in 1886 is the most outstanding achievement... and exactly why ubi-man is correct with "record books should be devoid of context. It should simply be a record of events."
    Absolutely, in terms of record books, it is the fan's responsibility to interpret the information contained.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    we've all given opinions on how these number sit with us, the changing times, the conditions. But I would assume that we can only come to one conclusion, Barry's number is the one that counts, thats the most, thats the record.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    Yes but context can remove any record. If we carefully look at everything, adjust for everything it could be that the guy who hit 8 in 1886 is the true single season home run champ. Which is why record books should be devoid of context. It should simply be a record of events. This player in this season hit the most homers in a season. This player had the most wins, so on and so on. If you want to make some timeline cutoffs thats fine by me.
    Sure, but context should be used to enhance your understanding of a record. Home Run Baker knocking out 12 homers isn't very impressive until you understand the context of a dead ball era. Same with Gravy Cravath (sic) or whoever's record Babe broke.

    So are we going to have a series of 'All Time Home Run Champs'?
    Old School Aaron and New School Bonds?
    Man, I hope we don't get to that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    it may very well be that the 8 in 1886 is the most outstanding achievement... and exactly why ubi-man is correct with "record books should be devoid of context. It should simply be a record of events."

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by johnny
    [/COLOR]

    The very last sentence is exactly why the context of records is so important.

    Yes but context can remove any record. If we carefully look at everything, adjust for everything it could be that the guy who hit 8 in 1886 is the true single season home run champ. Which is why record books should be devoid of context. It should simply be a record of events. This player in this season hit the most homers in a season. This player had the most wins, so on and so on. If you want to make some timeline cutoffs thats fine by me.

    Leave a comment:


  • CrimeInTheCards
    replied
    The homerun record belongs to bonds, period. I dont know or care how he got there. Ditto for maris, mcgwire, sosa, and ruth. A record is a record, it stands as it is. As of now, In the record book it states bonds hit 73 homeruns in 2001, as far as I know that's the most hit by a position player ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black
    sultan: ditto
    16 teams
    ditto times 10
    other worldly factors that take talent away
    ditto times 10
    ball
    bats
    ballparks
    armor
    helmet
    pine tar
    batting gloves
    nutrition
    weights
    strike zone
    hitters backdrops
    private jets
    injury prevention
    luxurious clubhouses
    etc
    etc
    etc


    and yet your claim is that steroids alone enabled bonds to hit a homerun every 12+ swings.
    please explain the discrepancy.
    Never said that. These factors are available to EVERYONE, and are a large reason why the game is hardly comparable as it is. What Bonds was taking was only available through BALCO, and when added to this long list; combined with his own talent, it led to it imo.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    In ten years or however long it takes when somebody approaches this level of homers in a season everybody is going to want to see him try for Bonds homer record. Who is going to say well he beat Maris' record so has it now, and when somebody does come along and take the record the headline is going to be Soandso break Bonds single season record.

    50 years from now if no one breaks the record it will be Barry Bonds who is the single season home run champ and who has the number that must be beaten, not Maris. When Maris broke the record there was an uproar and I'm sure that a lot of people felt just like a lot of you guys, that Babe was the rightful record holder and that was how they were going to view it. Fast forward a decade and everyone for the most part has accepted Roger as the record holder.


    The very last sentence is exactly why the context of records is so important.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    sultan: ditto
    16 teams
    ditto times 10
    other worldly factors that take talent away
    ditto times 10
    ball
    bats
    ballparks
    armor
    helmet
    pine tar
    batting gloves
    nutrition
    weights
    strike zone
    hitters backdrops
    private jets
    injury prevention
    luxurious clubhouses
    etc
    etc
    etc


    and yet your claim is that steroids alone enabled bonds to hit a homerun every 12+ swings.
    please explain the discrepancy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Bonds' 73 will sit high atop the mountain for all to see. His legacy sits in the limelight. Seems only fitting.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Actually this poll is quite different for me than the other one. That one asks which record do you respect more. I picked Maris' 61 and commented that Ruth's 60 is actually still the most impressive to me (it wasn't a poll option). This one asks which is the benchmark. I voted Bonds' 73.
    --Ubi is correct in saying it is the record and the only number anybody is going to care about being broken. Do you really think there will be alot of fanfare if somebody hits 62 HR this year - or any year. It would be a great season, but nobody is going to be calling it a record.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    Oh I don't think we want to bring context into this argument.
    162 game schedule
    Expansion year
    quality of pitchers
    segregation
    hitting philosophies. . . . .
    ditto
    16 teams
    ditto times 10
    other worldly factors that take talent away
    ditto times 10
    ball
    bats
    ballparks
    armor
    helmet
    pine tar
    batting gloves
    nutrition
    weights
    strike zone
    hitters backdrops
    private jets
    injury prevention
    luxurious clubhouses
    etc
    etc
    etc


    We dont' want to get into context for 73, 70, 66, 65, and 64's sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by johnny
    yes, absent context...
    Oh I don't think we want to bring context into this argument.
    162 game schedule
    Expansion year
    quality of pitchers
    segregation
    hitting philosophies. . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    In ten years or however long it takes when somebody approaches this level of homers in a season everybody is going to want to see him try for Bonds homer record. Who is going to say well he beat Maris' record so has it now, and when somebody does come along and take the record the headline is going to be Soandso break Bonds single season record.

    50 years from now if no one breaks the record it will be Barry Bonds who is the single season home run champ and who has the number that must be beaten, not Maris. When Maris broke the record there was an uproar and I'm sure that a lot of people felt just like a lot of you guys, that Babe was the rightful record holder and that was how they were going to view it. Fast forward a decade and everyone for the most part has accepted Roger as the record holder.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by BoSox Rule
    73 is a larger number than 70, 66, 65, 64, 61, and 60.
    yes, absent context...

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X